Driving while intoxicated: Increased deterrence or alternative transportation for the drunk driver

Caudill, Barry D.; Kantor, Glenda Kaufman; Ungerleider, Steven

doi:10.1016/s0899-3289(05)80045-8

Cited by 8 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Customers who had already completed the survey elsewhere that evening were excluded. To limit pre-survey drinking, customers were approached when they first entered the establishment (just inside the entrance), and existing patrons were not permitted to participate, as was also true in our previous barroom research (eg, 1,2,9,46,51 ). These procedures and training of survey staff were strictly standardized across the two communities, and included a verbatim script of what the staff person should say to a prospective participant.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We deliberately studied bar-room patrons to increase the proportion of drinkers at elevated risk for impaired driving. We questioned bar-room drinkers on a peak weekend night in the very settings and time periods in which intoxication frequently occurs as a prelude to alcohol-impaired driving (eg, 46–50 ). We did our best to avoid a convenience sample by choosing our bars randomly, screening every patron, and inviting every eligible customer to participate in the study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Avoiding DWI among Bar-room Drinkers: Strategies and Predictors

et al. 2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the prevalence and predictors of 11strategies to avoid driving when feeling intoxicated among 561 bar-room patrons in two medium-sized Maryland communities. Logistic regression analyses identified demographic, behavioral, and attitudinal predictors of avoidance strategies and interactions among predictors. Overall, 89% reported one or more DWI avoidance actions in the past year, and 38% reported driving intoxicated during that time. Average frequencies of avoidance behavior and intoxicated driving increased significantly as drinking level increased. However, the higher the drinking level, the smaller the ratio of avoidance actions to DWI experiences, highlighting the vulnerability of heavy drinkers who had driven intoxicated.Using a sober driver or one who allegedly drank less than the respondent were the most popular and frequent strategies, but paying for a cab, walking, and using a bus or free cab were relatively unpopular. Higher drinking levels predicted significantly higher odds of using avoidance approaches, as did intoxicated driving. Confidence in driving safely when intoxicated was positively related to drinking level and intoxicated driving, but it tended to predict lower odds of avoidance actions. Similarly, marital status, age, gender, and location influenced the odds of avoidance behaviors. Interventions should be strategically tailored to exploit or counter drinker predilections among avoidance options.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avoiding DWI among Bar-room Drinkers: Strategies and Predictors

et al. 2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Multiple offenders who repetitively disregard DUI/ DWI laws and drive after drinking are essentially involved in routine alcoholimpaired driving that is reinforced by the low probability of arrest (Anda et al 1986;Beitel et al 1975;Borkenstein 1974;Hingson 1995;Voas and Hause 1987;Zador et al 2000); low detection rates, even during special enforcement operations such as sobriety checkpoints (Ferguson et al 1995;Jones and Lund 1986); and few harmful repercussions such as crashes. Studies clearly indicate that a substantial proportion of multiple DUI/DWI offenders are motivated to drink because they are dependent on alcohol (Dawson 1999;Perrine 1990;Voas 2001;Wiliszowski et al 1996), that they are motivated to drive after drinking because their last drink was likely to have been in a bar or restaurant (McKnight 1993) to which they had driven, and because alcohol-impaired drinkers misinterpret cues of intoxication (Jones and Lacey 2000) and tend to be over-confident in their ability to drive safely while intoxicated (Caudill et al 1990).…”

Section: Similarities and Differences Between The Two Maryland Rctsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of administrative ignition interlock license restrictions on drivers with multiple alcohol offenses

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated, under real-world conditions, whether a statewide 2-year administrative ignition interlock license restriction program in Maryland was effective in reducing subsequent alcohol-related traffic violations among multiple offenders and whether any reductions in recidivism could be maintained after the program ended and interlock license restrictions were removed. A total of 1,927 drivers eligible for relicensure were randomly assigned to either the 2-year interlock license restriction program or the normal and customary sanctions afforded multiple offenders in Maryland. Recidivism was defined as incurring a subsequent alcoholimpaired driving violation during the 2-year intervention or 2-year postintervention periods. Compared to the control group, participation in the interlock license restriction program reduced drivers' hazard (or risk) of a subsequent alcoholimpaired driving offense by a statistically significant 36% during the 2-year intervention, 26% during the 2-year postintervention period, and 32% during the entire 4-year study period. This investigation of interlock program effectiveness is the first to report significantly lower recidivism among the interlock group than its control group after the ignition interlock license restriction program ended. Possible reasons for this novel finding and areas for future research are discussed.

show abstract

“…HCDDs are more likely than those who do not drink and drive or one-time offenders to believe they can drive safely after consuming large quantities of alcohol (Caudill, Kantor, & Ungerleider, 1990;Nelson et al, 1998;Hingson, Hereen, & Winter, 1998). They fail to make alternative transportation arrangements before drinking (Nelson et al, 1998) and underestimate their level of intoxication at the time they decide to drive (Beirness, Foss, & Voas, 1993).…”

Section: Drinking and Driving Beliefsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The “Hard Core Drinking Driver”

White

2007

Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Driving while intoxicated: Increased deterrence or alternative transportation for the drunk driver

Cited by 8 publications

References 6 publications

Avoiding DWI among Bar-room Drinkers: Strategies and Predictors

Avoiding DWI among Bar-room Drinkers: Strategies and Predictors

Effects of administrative ignition interlock license restrictions on drivers with multiple alcohol offenses

The “Hard Core Drinking Driver”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About